nmm 22 4500ICPSR03423MiAaIm f a u cr mn mmmmuuuu150802s2003 miu f a eng d(MiAaI)ICPSR03423MiAaIMiAaI
Process Evaluation of a Domestic Abuse Reduction Team in Clinton County, New York, 1998-2000
[electronic resource]
Lynda Ames
2003-04-03Ann Arbor, Mich.Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor]2003ICPSR3423NumericTitle from ICPSR DDI metadata of 2015-08-02.UNAVAILABLE. This study is currently unavailable.Also available as downloadable files.
This study was a process evaluation of a criminal justice
program responding to intimate partner violence. The program consisted
of an effort by the probation office, the district attorney's office,
and local advocates for battered women to coordinate prosecution of
offenders and then to effectively supervise them under probation. The
Domestic Abuse Reduction Team (DART), as the program was called, was
formed in 1996 and consisted of a domestic violence case coordinator
in the district attorney's office, a probation officer dedicated to a
domestic violence caseload, a legal advocate from the STOP Domestic
Violence program, and a domestic violence task force coordinator
housed in probation. This study documented the achievements of and
difficulties encountered by the interagency team in a largely rural
county in upstate New York. Such programs are relatively new in the
United States, and very new to rural areas. The focus of this process
evaluation was how the program functioned and the issues it addressed,
rather than outcome measures such as recidivism after
intervention. Data were collected from domestic incident reports
(DIRs) and the district attorney's mainframe database. The DIRs were
mandatory reports filed by police for each domestic violence incident
to which they responded. The district attorney's database contained
information about cases that were prosecuted, such as the name of the
court, the initial charges, and the sentences. Data were gathered from
these case files to describe the demographic characteristics of
victims and offenders and to describe offenses. Part 1 contains data
for all cases in Clinton County that stemmed from a DIR from 1998 to
2000. Part 2 contains a subset of these DIR cases for which there was
an identified male offender and a female intimate partner as a victim
that could be matched to the district attorney's database. This subset
allowed the principal investigators to pinpoint the official domestic
violence cases that were prosecuted. Variables in Parts 1 and 2
consist of the police agency filing the report, the date of the
incident, whether there was an arrest, the sex, race, and birth date
of both the victim and the offender, the relationship of the victim to
the offender, the charges filed, the court in which the case was
heard, the pleas offered, and the sentence given.
Cf.: http://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR03423.v1
rural areasicpsrdomestic violenceicpsrinterventionicpsroffendersicpsrprobationicpsrprocess evaluationicpsrprosecutionicpsrcriminal justice programsicpsrNACJD VI. Criminal Justice SystemNACJD XIII. Violence Against WomenICPSR XVII.E. Social Institutions and Behavior, Crime and the Criminal Justice SystemAmes, LyndaInter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research.ICPSR (Series)3423Access restricted ; authentication may be required:http://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR03423.v1